Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shaggy9872004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Shaggy9872004

Final (3/11/7); Ended 23:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Shaggy9872004 (talk · contribs) - I'm one of the major contributors to the articles to do with the following subjects, Harry Potter, TVB, Brisbane Lions, Australian Television. I update regularly on those subjects and am and axtive user on wikipedia. I started out on wikipedia in late 2006 and have since made approximately 2500 edits to wikipedia. I am perhaps most concerned with WP:WPHK, WP:HP and WP:AUTV. I am familiar with most wikipedia tools and would love to ever expand the website that feeds many people the information they need in their daily lives.Shaggy9872004 (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this self-nominated nomination.Shaggy9872004 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:I intend to help expand and neutralise the articles that I have mentioned I work on the most. I like to keep within the scope of my expertise of a researcher and I like keep articles in top condition for our readers. I like to update pages with events as soon as I have the information and the sources and intend to do a bit of page-protecting and blocking of users since I follow that very closely. In fact, it is on my watch page list. I also intend to help out with 3RR problems as I too was once a victim and a culprit, I would like to help wiki prevent further issues of this matter.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:Although I used to be a bit of a pest on wikipedia, I am most proud of my many contributions to the The Wedge (Australian TV series) article and all related articles including the episode guide and list ot of characters page I created for the show. I am proud of these edits because they have helped users understand and inform them of the subject to the best of my ability. I am a major expander to the articles I know most about as you can see in my contribution list. I am also very proud that I have created a lot of the pages that link to the List of TVB series (2007) artcle.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:I have once upon a time been a pest at wikipedia, especially edit-warring WAS my expertise. However, I have since been known to discuss things on the article's discussion page before disputing an edit. However I have also taken wikipedia's "Be bold" policy into account as well so in future I will maintain these practices and try my best do both evenly. I have in the past received abit of stress from a fellow editor, J Di, but I have learnt to deal with issues like that in the said way.

[edit] Additional questions

4. Have you used, or do you currently use any alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia?

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Shaggy9872004 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • So it's decided; good editor with good intentions but needs more experience. Shaggy, type in the edit summary before saving pages. Now close this. Dlae│here 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Moral Support yeah he's showing really good signs its just more experience thats stands in the way. Gnangarra 15:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Excellent article work Shaggy! I suggest that you work more in admin related areas, such as AFDs, AIV, ANI etc, and perhaps make more use of edit summaries and then come back in a few months, when a request will have more chance of passing. Thanks, and happy editing! Redrocketboy 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. This is a good-faithed and quality user, but the reasons for oppose are exactly what I thought they would be. Just listen to advice your opposition is giving you, take it all as a way to improve, and then try again in a few months. Good luck. Acalamari 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose. This editor is on the right track. More experience is necessary in the Wikipedia namespace. Improved edit summary usage would also be nice. The work he's done has been good, I'd be close to supporting if he had more Wikipedia namespace edits, but I think he'd benefit by more work in admin-like areas. I'd recommend WP:AFD as one of my favorites. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Sorry, Shaggy, I have to oppose. You barely use edit summaries, nor do you have experience in admin-related areas. Sorry. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 02:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Sorry, but I suggest going to WP:Articles for deletion. That will give you some experience in admin areas. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The lack of experience is a major concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    What kind of experience? How could the candidate improve in the future? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose for now. Not ready yet. Needs more experience as stated above. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 14:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    What kind of experience? How could the candidate improve in the future? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    Stop asking the same questions. Everyone wants the candidate to continue while making use of the edit summaries. Dlae│here 18:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well why didn't he say that then? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I hate to pile on, but you need to communicate more with others here. You made two edits to article talkspace since november [1], two to user talk since the middle of October [2] , and the last one to the Wikipedia talk space was more than a year ago [3]. And you haven't edited in the WP namespace since July, excluding stuff relating to this RFA [4]. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 16:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Sorry, heart in the right place but 50% edits without summaries this month alone? You should set this up in your Preferences. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    Just a note on how to go about doing this, go to "My Preferences in the top right corner, go to the "Editing" tab, and the last option should be "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Check it, and then you're done. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    It took me two months to find this out; but I reckon an admin should know this, therefore, so should an admin candidate. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Experience concerns. Use edit summaries more often from now on to reduce confusion. NHRHS2010 talk 18:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Insufficient total edits and to talk pages and Wiki space. No information on user page to indicate what sort of person is this editor. Not using edit summaries in most cases. Poor answers to questions. Come back in six months. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - more experience. Miranda 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    How is this supposed to help the candidate? At the current state of this RfA, you could quite easily have stayed out of it completely. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    Miranda's giving her opinion, like everyone else is free to do. There's nothing wrong with that Ryan. Nick mallory (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    But this oppose serves no purpose to the candidate, it doesn't help him one bit - unfortunately for shaggy, it clearly looks like this isn't going to pass, so this oppose is merely another number. At this stage in RfA's, we should strive to offer the candidate constructive critisism, so for next time, they are better prepared. If you can't be bothered to do that, then stay out of it completely. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    There's no rule that says Miranda can't oppose without giving much of a comment, so don't tell people to keep out of it. Besides, it says "more experience", which to most people means "you need more experience", so it does serve purpose. Jack?! 23:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Gain some more experience. You're clearly a promising Wikipedian, but I don't feel you're ready. Jack?! 23:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral Plenty of positive stuff here, but a few concerns prevent me from supporting. Edit summaries are a bug bear of mine, and I'd recommend you turn on the "force edit summary" in your preferences. You seem to have been very focussed on your article of interest, and that's great. I also like the intent that I read in your answers to the questions, which seems positive and honest. My concern is your weak contributions in the project space. Per some in oppose WP:XFD experience would help. Don't be discouraged though, I suspect a future RfA in 3/4 months would be a great idea, but for now I'd recommend withdrawing. Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  08:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral to avoid a pile-on. I agree with Pedro - a greater contribution to articles would be good, especially as you have an interest in page protection. A wide experience of the kind of editing disputes that are likely to arise will help in making controversial decisions in this area. Also, more experience with artciles/images/categories etc for deletion and a focus on vandal-fighting and reports, to demonstrate your understanding of the policies and guidelines you'd be enforcing as an admin. Lastly, edit sumamries are a fine thing as they help others see what you've changed. Just some suggestions - come back in a while with all these and I'll support the nomination. Euryalus (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - as per Jetlover. — Rudget Contributions 11:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. I must concur with Pedro, above - the candidate is a good editor with positive contributions. I agree that WP:XFD is a good place to start, though I note that the candidate already reports vandals to WP:AIV, which is excellent - keep doing that. Edit Summaries are a must, since other admins will have to see from your edit summary what you were thinking when you take an action (Blocks, especially). Keep working, and I'll be happy to support in a few months. Best wishes, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, I agree with Pedro (talk · contribs), above. Cirt (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
  6. My advice is to edit more widely - the edit counter says you have currently edited 273 distinct pages. You could do new page patrol, or expand stubs, or wikify or copyedit articles. You will inevitably run into a wide range of users and problems, which will prepare you for adminship. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. Get edits to the Projectspace, and follow CBM's advice, it's good ;). Sorry. Malinaccier (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.